Following on from the Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday that Bush’s proposed military tribunals were not currently legal, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has issued a response detailing his opinion.
Not surprisingly, he condemns the ruling; he claims that it has “hampered [the administration's] ability to move forward” with the War on Terror, and states that the military tribunals were a useful tool in fighting terrorism. However, he remains hopeful that the administration will overcome this hurdle and claims to be “working closely with Congress to look at legislation”.
As I stated in the previous article, the administration seems to see this ruling as a minor obstacle rather than a complete scuppering of their plans. Mentioning that the ruling still allowed the administration to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for the “duration of hostilities”, Gonzales added:
That path is still available to us. The president of the United States can continue to hold enemy combatants at Guantanamo. But we are looking at ways to provide as many tools as possible to the president of the United States in dealing with terrorists. — CNN
An unsurprising response, then. However, the most shocking elements of the speech came later, when Gonzales all but rejected the Geneva Convention. When discussing the merits of court-martial, Gonzales let slip: “[bin Laden would] receive the same sort of procedures and protections that we afford members of our military. . . . I don’t know if that’s the right approach quite frankly.”
This kind of shocking statement sums up the Bush administration’s view on both international law and on human rights in general. Disregarding such an incredibly important codification of human rights as the Geneva Convention has important consequences for all aspects of American society; that the administration considers such a rejection a trivial step displays a disregard for liberty heretofore unexpressed by the administration, but which nevertheless has underpinned almost all of its foreign policy decisions. Sadly, I think that these comments will go ignored by a populace more concerned with revenge against terrorists such as bin Laden rather than their country’s image as a bastion of human rights.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Gardner Goldsmith explains why claims by politicians that consumers can become "irrational" and why claims by the same politicians that government can help "fix" markets are both false and misleading. He also explains what the terms Praxeology and Epistemology mean, which is key in understanding how to place free markets in their proper place among human history.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Charles Stricklin
Jul 02, 2006
I fail to understand where the Geneva Convention regulations even enter the picture. These captured enemy combatants don’t belong to any army, don’t wear any uniform and don’t fight for any nation. They are terrorists in the truest sense, undeserving of Geneva Convention guarantees.
And since when have our enemies ever followed them to begin with? Vietnam didn’t, Korea didn’t, Japan didn’t, Germany didn’t, why should we?
I’m not advocating a Hotel Hanoi or a Bataan death march or anything, what I am saying is a military tribunal is preferable to allowing these maniacal terrorists unfettered access to their enemy country’s legal system! Allowing these thugs to have standard trials will allow them to turn our courts into pulpits to spew their hate and make public national security secrets.
I’d rather return them to Iraq and Afghanistan to face trial and punishment than to allow them access to the same justice system serving you and I, broken as it may be.
Michael Hampton
Jul 02, 2006
And many of them weren’t fighting at all.
Renee Sanders
Jul 03, 2006
Once again I find myself agreeing with many of the postings on this Libertarian blog. My question is, will the Libertarians join with the Democrats to unseat the Republican Rubberstamp Congress. Could the Libs tolerate a Democrat controlled Congress for at least two years?
Rob Miller
Jul 03, 2006
Charles, if the US has enough evidence to proclaim with confidence that the Guantanamo detainees are terrorists, why not give them a fair trial? You’ll end up showing that democracy and fairness triumphs over evil, and have the added bonus of putting away some dangerous people.
Unless of course you don’t have that evidence, and the detainees are entirely innocent… well, that would be a problem.
Walter Clark
Jul 04, 2006
Enemy combatants, be they terrorists who, by their every thought and action have removed themselves from protection under the Geneva Conventions, or captured enemy soldiers, are not, under international law, entitled to either military or civilian trial. Go back and look at World War I, World War II, Korea, whatever. We captured them and held them, without access to legal counsel, courts or hearings, until the end of hostilities. The only thing lawyers and others who want to give full access to the courts are doing, whether they intend to or not, is provide those who are against the US and freedom another avenue to tie up the US Government and make defending our country, people and freedom more difficult. In the exact same way the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post and other media outlets that take leaked secret information and publicize it are directly fighting against the interests of this nation and with and for the terrorists.
The think I find most amazing about all this is that the very people who are doing as much as they possibly can to insure the victory of the Islamofascists and the destruction of our nation are the ones whose lifestyles and beliefs would be first for the Islamofascists to punish. Or maybe that’s it, you have an insanity problem and fantasize about being repeated raped and tortured by Osama and his friends.
Sick, sick, sick.
Walter M. Clark
Rob Miller
Jul 04, 2006
As I said, if you can proclaim with confidence that these people are terrorists, why the hell haven’t they been charged? Surely it would be better to see them imprisoned for what they have done and were planning to do if they are dangerous criminals who will stop at nothing to harm society?
Also, the word “Islamofascist” is a meaningless, moronic term and it would probably be better if you didn’t use it.
Clark Ruell
Jul 14, 2006
Where to start. The above statements show a complete ignorance of the concept of law and of limited government. Charles- firstly a military court is not the same as our courts. While it’s true that under the GC these terrorists do not qualify as soldiers and therefor do not enjoy the protection spelled out for soldiers, they are covered under the section dealing with non soldiers. These are ment to be basic human rights, not rights reserved only for soldiers. You do believe in basic human rights, don’t you? Or are you trying to say that they are subhuman? F Racist.
Renee- Democrats are for the same kind of government that Republicans are. Neither party respects law nor the Constitution nor individual Liberty. They simply have different ways of achieving their goals of destroying our liberty.
Walter- Our government is to be under the law. Law is to clearly define limits to their authority and power. It is a standard to be referenced whether it’s an agreement with ‘We the People’ or with other governments. It doesn’t depend on who the government is persecuting nor what our government has gotten away with in the past. The gov’t must follow certain basic proceadureds for all humans, whether they be citizen-subjects of the US or not. Whether they be in the US or not. Trials will hardly tie up so much resources that the gov’t can’t do it’s job. Small price to pay for ensuring our gov’t always follows the law. You are also protected by law, though less of late. Do you want a government that goes unchecked to be in charge of your freedoms? They have a terrible record of ensuring freedom. Saying that our press is on the side of terrorists is just plain stupid. The whole point of freedom of the press is to allow the press to report to ‘we the people’ what the gov’t is doing. In countries where the press is suppressed by the gov’t, those gov’ts can get away with more law breaking because it’s not known about. When the gov’t starts limiting free speech (newspapers, internet, whatever form) you should be afraid. Be very afraid.
The truth is that very little damage has been done to our country by terrorist. Only a few thousand US people have died at their hands while the US military has murdered almost 40,000 civilians. These are totaly inocent people who, under the GC, are not to be fired upon. Our reputation as a nation has gone into the toilet as a result of all we have done over there. Besides, our own gov’t has provided far more damage to our country by shredding the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the code of law than ANY terrorist(s) could possibly do.
Walter, your comment about those you have labeled as co-conspiritors with the terrorists shows what a stupid a@@hole you really are.